|
I've found it very interesting how diverse players can be not just in their play styles, but in their conceptualization of characters - where they begin their creation. Is it from adaptation? Visualization? Optimization? What's your tune?
I find myself more on an adaptation side of things. I take ideas from greater beings and adapt them to DnD/PF, generally. This isn't to say that I'm lazy and uncreative, though many may disagree. Sometimes the adaptation is from a simple character image - browse DeviantArt for an hour and you'll find tons. Many are from books, movies, video games, what have you. I'll take the basic idea and then mold it to the setting, change the personality as I see fit.
For example, my character in the Council of Thieves AP is a Rogue 10\Chevalier 1 that uses a scorpion whip - based off Trevor Belmont (Castlevania). I designed him per flavor with focus on high agility and combat maneuvers. Eventually took him through the Scout Rogue Archetype once the APG came out. His back story is that he was the heir to one of the River Kingdoms, who was exiled by a stepfather that saw him as a threat to his power. Through many a travesty he found himself in Cheliax, living in a broken-down flat and finding himself in a very "Alladin-esque" lifestyle before being thrust into the campaign. The story is much more in-depth than that, but he's become very well-integrated into the story.
Another fine example is a homebrew campaign we run in an adapted Ravenloft setting. A Monk/Rogue that uses claw weapons and an adaptation of the Leap Attack feat - IE: Vega. His personality is rediculously different, however. He plays a devout follower of a dying religious order, the followers of which were saved by the neighboring kingdom of which one of the other PC's is princess. This clan of religious exiles swore allegience to the royal family after their salvation and pledged their lives to the protection of their family line. They wear masks as a symbol of their casting off of their own personal vanity and self-importance, caring only for the life of those they protect.
I've made tons of these kinds of adaptations, and it always escapes me how some people can develop characters based solely on mechanic, morphing their backstory around what is statistically efficient. I'm not in any way saying this is a bad way to go, only commenting on the interest I have in others' creationary styles. What works for you? What are some of your best creations? Do tell, do tell.
ps: Here's a small list of some of the adaptations I've pulled off
Setzer (FF6) - Curse of the Crimson Throne - Arcane Duelist - Uses darts as razor-edged cards coupled with Arcane Strike and ranged feats
Anise Tatlin (Tales of the Abyss) - Homebrew - Gnome Bard
Colonel Roy Mustang (Fullmetal Alchemist) - Homebrew - Sorcerer (Elemental) - this one was more of an adaptation of combat style. Elemental is lightning, but all of his casting is snapping and electrifying things.
Prince of Persia - Homebrew - Rogue(Acrobat)\Dervish(Adapted)
Tear Grants (Tales of the Abyss) - Council of Thieves - Modeled Amaya (Bard) after her, and she acts as the cohort to my PC
Shinigami (Bleach) - Homebrew - Cleric negative channel-smiter
Hawkeye (Nathaniel Poe) (Last of the Mohicans) - Homebrew - Two-Weapon Ranger using Tomahawk (Handaxe) and Dagger.
As I'm sure it is with a lot of players, I would have to say my process differs depending on the campaign and GM. Meaning that if I'm going to play with a group/GM that I have never played with before I tend to optimize.
But given some info on the campaign I'll be playing, IE area where it will be taking place and back story, I visualize (choose a race/class a lot more.
I usually have an idea of the type of character's personality before I start rolling dice. Sometimes my characters are knock-offs of others' (I played a drow fighter-mage that was inspired by Elaine Cunningham's Liriel Baenre: confident, sardonic, power-hungry). Other times I know the archetype and the character gets fleshed out later ("paladin" becomes a Texas Ranger in a Mage game or "gypsy" shapes up into a dual-blade wielding bard in Ravenloft). Most recently, I knew I wanted to play a fighter in an upcoming campaign. I really had no idea about the personality until I rolled up stats. I rolled a 7 charisma. That galled me (I dislike low scores). I channeled my ire into the character and just like that, Gaul was born--a surly, Jayne Cobb knock off who I very much look forward to playing.
I usually wait for the description of the world we'll be playing in...
If its a homebrew, I make a character with a background that matches the flavor or setting we'll be playing in.
If its FR or Ebberon, then I go nutz.
|
|
That's a very good point, actually. Setting is pretty much everything.
Sometimes I wonder if I'd have more fun optimizing a little more instead of sticking knee-deep in concept. It tends to be a slight crippling effect at later levels because I'm fitting more to style than mechanic. I'm sure there's a fair balance there somewhere, and most of the time I don't get overshadowed by the party too badly. But the times I do, it's very frustrating. I've just never been much of a "power gamer".
Like I have a character right now who I want to take into Mystic Theurge. That class alone is enough to make one cringe at the proper build, but doing so without straying too far from concept is a little tough and limiting him in power. He probably won't even see versatility until at least level 10-12.
I think it also has to do with whether said campaign is very combat or RP heavy. I think that definately shifts styles if known ahead of time.
A DM must create tons of character concepts from scratch, sometimes in an instant. I start with a general idea and mainly visualize what the character might look like and how they might act. This then shapes what class they would be draw too and what specific skills they would be most likely to develope.
I have had players to play the same (or basically the same) type of character every time. I have also had players that prefer to create characters that do not fit into the setting at all, making an outsider who bucks the norm in almost every way.
I feel that as long as the character has personality, the usefulness and power of the character is not important. A clumsy rouge might be just what the party needs to make the game more entertaining.
When I fill the roll of a player I tend to be the fellow who creates a character modeled after what the party needs. If there is a need for healing then I will be the cleric but I usually throw a fun twist in to give the roll some flavor.
For example, during the LoF campaign (as a player) I played a cleric of Sarenrae who also happened to be an albino. She was a bit of a religious zealot as well so she would converse with herself over matters of religious importance, she would stand out in the sun and let the lights burn her sensitive skin as form of cleansing, etc.
So I suppose, for me, the important ingredients are: Setting Appropriate, Developed Personality and Adds to the fun of the game.
Thanks for the discussion topic. I also enjoy seeing how different players originate their characters.
I find myself more on an adaptation side of things.
. . .I've made tons of these kinds of adaptations, and it always escapes me how some people can develop characters based solely on mechanic, morphing their backstory around what is statistically efficient.
I'm exactly the opposite. My very last choice among approaches to character creation, and the one I understand least, is building from an existing fictional character. Although I am influenced by the characters I've read and watched, of course.
My first step is to get a general idea of the setting and rules. Basically, I want to know what the game was written to do. This isn't necessary for a game I've played before, but I've played a few dozen different game systems, and they're all built to make different things possible. I find that players, myself included, have a lot more fun playing something that was written into the conception of the game, rather than something alien to it.
I started a Shadowrun game once for a number of new players. One wanted to make a shaman of some kind, and decided that making a cockroach shaman would be really cool. Unfortunately, "Insect Shaman" were actually the main enemy in that version of the game. Any other animal, totem, god, or philosophy would have worked. But, without reading through the possibilities, she picked one of the very few that wouldn't work.
A second player wanted to make a mage, and decided on a mage who worked his magic on high tech machines and computers. Shadowrun has a very strong theme of "magic vs. tech", making high tech machines and computers the absolute hardest things to effect with magic.
The third player browsed through the book and "drain" mechanic for magic. He asked me what that was, and when I explained to him that, in Shadowrun, magic users can cast spells over and over all day (so long as they don't wear themselves out) and he built a whole character around that idea. "So, I could make a magic user that has spells for normal daily activities, and gets addicted to that, largely giving up on doing anything manually."
|
Coming up with characters is interesting...
I usually start with some idea. One tiny detail that I'll start with. Like being a tiefling, or liking healing magic or some other tiny little detail. I then start throwing in more details until I start getting ones that sound too far off of the picture that had started growing in my mind. Once that happens I toss out the extraneous bits and start refining by adding more in-concept details.
In rare cases I'll end up with a character whose gender does not match my own. I'm currently playing a female tiefling who is a self-proclaimed "vitamancer." She's out to prove that it's her human side's magical aptitude that is stronger, not her fiendish background's brute strength (which she knows about thanks to racial memories, an alternate trait pulling from AP25). She primarily cures and inflicts alternately. Don't call her a necromancer though, she hates undead with a passion. Since we play with the healing sub-school in necromancy, this ends up an interesting internal conflict. "Oh sure, I know *how* to make undead, but I'm not going to do it. *inflict*"
I tend to find my self creating characters from a list of concepts that build up over time. I do more GM'ing than playing so usually I've got three or four loaded to deploy into a given system. My concepts tend to come from history, other literature and movies. When I see or read something cool I immediately begin to synthesize it into game terms. I also pull ideas from the rambling conversation that tends to take place on game days. I once made a cleric with a personality based on that of Harper Lee's Aticus Finch from To Kill A Mockingbird. I also made an acolyte for Dark Heressy based on Louis XIV of France. Quite a spread really...
|
|
As InsideOwt pointed out, DMs have the painstaking task of populating their worlds with dozens of personalities. I've had to create a host of creatures for my players to deal with and, knowing more than half of these NPCs may never even speak with my players, I've got no problem dropping homages and references into my games. In the campaign I'm currently running, I've got NPCs who are based on everything from favorite Animaniacs characters to real people like Roger Baker, a farmer in England who tried to drown a woman in pig manure.
For my own characters, sometimes all it takes is a cool-looking miniature for me to say, "I want to tell that guy's story." The only character I can remember playing recently that was based on anything was an aventi druid inspired by Aquaman. I even painted his mini in orange and green armor and he had a sea snake animal companion named Dr. Vulko (the snake had a PhD in Toxicology ^_^)
I usually have at least 3 skeleton's/concepts at any point. I've been known to have HORRID luck with dice at the worst times possible. I actually have a fairly large folder with a see through cover that just says "Jesse's Graveyard" that is composed of all the "fresh" characters I've lost over the years. I had come back from out of town (school) to rejoin friends playing an ongoing campaign, sat down for a few hours pouring over the books to come up with a concept and how to fit it with the rules. Got it all down, sat down happily to join the party and get the character introductions/interaction done, about 10 minutes after that on the way to where the adventure was supposed to take place... I managed to fail a trivial balance check (as a monk), fail the check to "save yourself" (climbing check) AND fail the reflex check the DM threw in to allow me to save myself after that. I think it was a 2, 1 and 1 that was rolled.
This happens on a semi-regular basis SO I just got to the point where I didn't want to spend a ton of time trying to figure out what to play next or hold up the group. I just have the basics of several things I'd like to play and out of the those I can usually find something that will work in any particular campaign/game from there. Our normal DM sometimes likes to play it where the characters have no idea what each of them can do and so we don't do a brainstorming session to figure out who is playing what, on those occasions he'll just ask what I've had in mind and make a suggestion ;) As someone mentioned before I if I'm heading into a game with no idea what to expect I will definitely try to optimize the character to be as self sufficient/give the character as much a chance of survial as possible. If the character dies and/or I know the party/characters/etc. I'm more likely to play a less optimized/"fun" character. Concepts can come from anywhere for me, as you said a picture sometimes sparks something, sometimes a character is from something I've read or watched, other times a certain set of class abilities might be the inspiration (I've always loved the paladin/bard combo for some reason) and am very partial to melee/hybrid versus casters (so in that way I'm not really ever a "true" optimizer I guess).
|
Like SL4, I usually have a few ideas 'on a back burner' at any given time. Usually very vague and can range from, 'Bard, because I've never played one' to 'Sword and Board Fighter who uses Shield bash to position enemies for flanks and such'. This seems like it should be an easy step, but I need to feel 'inspired' in someway to become invested in the character concept early on, so it's actually the hardest part for me.
Then, when I need to get a new PC ready for action, I'll start looking at races/feat chains/traits and use those to flesh out a background and personality. I try not to do this too early because I can change my mind a lot if I have time to think about it too much. I started on my Kingmaker Bard a couple months before we finished Second Darkness and he went through, probably 7 or 8 revisions before we started play and the final version looks incredibly close to the original.
Names generally come last and are the second hardest part of character creation for me. I simply can not use a random name generator. It has to come from 'within' so to speak. I make heavy use of Gygax's Extraordinary Book of names for this part. Also the occasional internet resource to find the meaning of various names and foreign/ancient language words.
Do I optimize during the process? Yes. I do. Not always, and not to obnoxious extremes, but whatever my PC is supposed to do, I want him to do well and I give him every reasonable advantage that doesn't break believability (for me).
I always use the same method, though the steps are not entirely linear. They go in order, but sometimes a thought at a later step will make me revisit an earlier step to get a better fit of the developing character. Sometimes my mind takes unexpected turns and I go with it.
First, I determine what class I want to play, and a bit of how I want to play it. Next, I determine what race would work well with that class that I might enjoy. Then I come up with a few character traits the character should have. I think of how they might act and react in a few situations. I look at the race's background and ask myself how someone from that society might get to the pseudo-personage inside my head. I also try to leave a few things vague, as plot hooks for a GM. The character's name is almost always last - even in real life I think of a name as simply a label for the conceptualization I have in my head. When I think of someone, I think of the concept, not their name.
Sometimes there is a step 0, if I have part of a concept that I want to develop. In this case, I go through the above process but I start by limiting my choice of classes to those that fit the concept.
Example: In an Eberron campaign I wanted to play a paladin of the Silver Flame, and an Exalted type character (as in, Book of Exalted Deeds - not the mechanics, but the outlook). I felt a human would best fit this. In my head the paladin was calm and controlled, and always looking out for the party. This led to the idea that it should be a nurturing character, which put me in the mind that it should be a she. So I had this Lady Paladin in my head, sort of a big sister to the rest of the party. But I still had that calm and controlled aspect going. When I started thinking about how she acted and thought, she seemed very noble to me - so I made her nobility. While she served the church, she was also (very) distantly related to the monarchy. Then I asked why this noble girl would grow up to be a paladin, and I decided her father was a paladin himself. He had no chance for a son to raise in his footsteps (Why? Her mother must have died when she was a child) so he raised his daughter this way instead. My concept was mostly complete... then a friend in the group called. He really wanted to play a Warforged Paladin, and that seemed redundant and would leave us without an arcane caster. Since I'm such a nice person, I swapped with him. Now my noblewoman was a wizard. I kept most of the backstory, except now her father doted on her a little more and she wasn't military trained. Instead she became scholarly. I also saw her as less self-sufficient because of it, and talked to the GM about hiring a handmaiden.
Example 2: I started with a vague concept - a LN follower of a LE deity. I decided that he should be a fascist, but in the style of Mussolini instead of Hitler. I decided the strength of his convictions would put him as a cleric, with the Law and War domains. The war was, honestly, just for the weapon proficiency/focus (this was back in 3.5) but then I decided it fit. He wasn't just a cleric, he was a soldier. He believed in fascism as an ideology, the use of war and expansion as a means to develop economic prosperity. But of course, it truly was all for the people, and it was his job to protect those people. Because he was neutral, not evil, he didn't seek to abuse power, nor to have others abuse it. To him, the State was like a giant machine, and everyone was a cog. As long as the cogs worked properly, the machine would run smoothly. But if the machine wasn't running smoothly, well, some of the cogs needed fixing or replacing. This might mean some of the citizens... but it could also be the dictator himself. After all, even the Supreme Commander was just another cog to make the state run. I never created a full background for this character, deliberately. It was part of his ideology in a way - his background and identity itself weren't important, only the function he performed in service to the State.
I tend to build from background/environment. I think of the setting, what happened recently in the area where the character is from, how this affected him(or her) and his family/friends etc. Generally I go to class next because to me, your class and levels show how you coop with your environment and are a mechanical representation of how you respond to the world. Afterwards I consider what skills, powers, feats, etc he would need to be able to respond/do what it is that he does, and that fits in with his background.
All this of course helps inform me of the personality even more and we end with alignment (a guess at it at least) and the other such details -- equipment, where it came from, what he wants, over all goals, and the like.
|
|
I'm usually the last one in the group to make his character. Generally, I listen to what everyone else is playing first and decide what sort of character the party needs. In the campaign I'm just joining right now, I found that the party had quite a few melee combat types but almost no ranged support, so I decided to fill that role.
Then, I think of the classes that can fill that role and what races are the most effective with those classes. Once I pick my character's race, I also pick a name that goes well with that race. In this case, I picked Fighter and used the Crossbowman archetype from the APG. Then, I selected a homebrew race with a Dexterity bonus.
From there, I roll a d6 to determine what alignment I play (1 for Lawful Good, 2 for Neutral Good, and so on; evil alingments not included). In this campaign, I rolled a 4, so I decided on LN.
Finally, I pick a primary emotion that drives my character. In this case, I decided pride fit best with him based on his alignment and the flavor text for his race.
From there I synthesize the information that I've generated into a functional backstory. In this case, I decided my Fighter was from a military family where he was raised with extreme discipline, hence the lawful alignment. He had an older brother who achieved much and thus brought honor to the family and frequently eclipsed the achievements of my character, so he was often jealous and eager to bring honor to the family. When his unit was routed in battle and scattered, he decided to go adventuring to earn treasure and glory so that he could return to his family with dignity instead of shame.
It really just depends on the game and how familiar I am with the game world. The more I know about the campaign setting the more likely I am to start with a character that fits into the setting. If I don't know the setting I try to start with a little detail and then work from there.
One time I got into an argument with a guy at a grocery store over a parking place once. He had a cane and was talking with his teeth clenched, after a while I realized his teeth weren't clenched because he was pissed off, but because he had some sort of injury that meant he couldn't unclench his jaw. I like each character to have his own "voice", so when my buddy ran "A Game of Thrones" I decided my character would talk with his teeth clenched all the time. That led me to a back story about how he got injured during an assassination attempt. The rest of the character just kind of unfolded from their. The other players liked the voice so much that when I stopped doing it during one session because my jaw was getting tired they all said, "Come on man you have to do the voice".
I've found it very interesting how diverse players can be not just in their play styles, but in their conceptualization of characters - where they begin their creation. Is it from adaptation? Visualization? Optimization? What's your tune?
Sometimes my concepts are RP based, and sometimes they are built upon a mechanical objective. Once I get my idea I start to work on how to mechanically make it sound in the game. My most difficult choice is normally what race to use. At some point I come up with a background story. I don't sit down and think one up. It of just comes to me at some point, and at that point I normally end up rewriting the mechanics to fit the modified concept more.
I optimize to an extent, but I don't try make the strongest character possible. I do try to make sure it will live to see the end of the campaign though.Sometimes I will try something just as an experiment. That is how I ended up playing a druid. I am thinking of going with a diviner wizard or bard next. I don't care for bards, but then again I never cared for druids either until I played one.
For me, It varies from character to character.
Usually I'll watch something and go "OOOOH! Thats cool!" then try to make a character base on it. As time goes on the character developed more and more to be less than a one hit wonder, and more of a living breathing character.
Then I start going through source books to translate the character into the game. Sometimes I have to ask for DM permission. sometimes, I'll find things that work, but there are some things that cause the design of the character to change and become more of the mechanics, until finally I've got a 3d character, who works mechanically and conceptually.
Othertimes, I look through a book and go "hey, I could do something with.." then I either try to break that thing or make something kinda ridiculous with it. For example My Alchemist, would be going all swat with his "grenades" and crossbow.
I've found it very interesting how diverse players can be not just in their play styles, but in their conceptualization of characters - where they begin their creation. Is it from adaptation? Visualization? Optimization? What's your tune?
I do a mix of Archtyping and Inspiration.
Archtyping is easy: Brave Knight, Slinky Seductress, Paragon Archer, Warrior/Maiden. Take an archtype from any source and run with it. Some people may see this as lazy, but I don't mind. Regardless of *how* a character is conceieved, they all fit into an archtype somehow.
The inspiration is often misinterpreted as 'adaptation' (which I have no issues with--so long as your Drow Ranger *is not* dual wielding swirling scimitars named Drxxt. :p) I often take a single image and go from there. I have used single photographs, and single miniatures to make whole characters. Again, it's an *inspiration*
GNOME
As a DM I typically turn to television for 'liftable' ideas and I keep a batch of old television shows specifically around for that reason. It helps to watch an actor flesh out a character, and if the portrayal sticks, then that character gets added to a list of mental 'archetypes'.
Usually these archetypes just sit unused for long periods of time but eventually they get used. The catalytic trigger is typically what's relevant at the moment - it might be a piece of art which makes me think of a character, or it might be a story role, or a personality type. Taking an example from Rise of the Runelords, for some REALLY odd reason, Shalelu just made me think of Deedlit from Record of Lodoss War (must be the ears).
Usually, then, I'll go pop in the DVD and watch the character in action for around 15 minutes. Then I define the character's role in the setting, scribble down a quotable quote or two I could see the character using and at least three descriptors (athletics, friendly, clingy) and go dig through my archives for a piece of art.
Only then came the stats.
And if the NPC is a major recurring one, I'll sit down and write backstory, which is usually where I then make the idea my own.
Admittedly, I have many throwaway NPCs who never evolved beyond cardboard cutouts though there are also many many ascended extras who somehow developed something of a player following.
|
|
Great thread.
My group is starting a new campaign soon, so I got them to choose a 'role' each from the classic adventuring group - fighter, specialist, arcane, healer.
Two players gave me several well thought out character concepts - class, race, personality, some backstory and let me choose one that I thought was most suitable for the campaign.
One player had one concept with no race or class attached. It was a great concept so we worked in the class to fit it and what the group needed.
I had a long discussion/battle/email thread with one of my players. In the past, I found it difficult telling his characters' personalities apart in terms of in game conversations or actions. Each character would have a hugely detailed back story, but it just wouldn't come out at the table. I tried to change this my getting him to create several character concepts - describing each character without mentioning class, race, gear or feats. Not having never done that type of creation before, It was a huge challenge. After much discussion we go a very strong character concept, even though we worked from the class down.
So, next time you are creating a character, try writing a character description avoiding race, class, gear and feats. When you do this, you really see the archtype you're pitching, stripped of all the trimmings. If it's a interesting character on paper in this basic form, it will be fun to play and fun for the others around the table.
The other hint I gave to my players was to give the character some sort of schtick. It doesn't have to be overt or over the top, but something that your character does or says, a mannerism, superstition or ritual that makes your character memorable to the other players and your GM. You can then build your 'table' personality around this and really translate what you have written down and in your head to a well role-played character.
|
|
I often take a single image and go from there. I have used single photographs, and single miniatures to make whole characters. Again, it's an *inspiration*
GNOME
I do this alot. I find myself with a slough of only half-formed ideas flowing through my brain that only find solidity when I can actually visualize it. I'll find that one image and *bam* something clicks and I have myself a character, backstory, personality, etc. It's amazing what one decent fantasy image can do.
...and *bam* something clicks...
LOL Exactly: I once had a character fully fleshed out (as far as personality and backstory) within minutes of finding the Gwenlyn the Everproud mini from the Confrontation game :D
GNOME
I agree alot of my characters are done that way, just something a picture, mini just jumps out and your brain goes into overdrive. Some times it can be a mechanic, I made a sorceror after finding the force missile mage in dragon and bam there he was.
I tend to find that the background and stuff writes itself as I draw up the character as well, sometimes meaning I alter the character as with my mage. It came to me to have him a a traveller much like the TV show Kung Fu (LOL) so I gave him a couple of levels of monk just to round him out alittle. Yes he was less optimised but it was what I had in my head and he worked out well, able to use his staff in melee when guys got too close.
Character creation is one those things for me as I say anything can set the sparks flying, which can be annoying as someone else said because then I have a dozen half baked ideas running round my head LOL.
|
I usually start with a mechanic i like to try out, like a class ability or a spell, then i make a concept for said mechanic to be used, i pick the concept up and them build from there (although it does tend to lead to suboptimal to non-playable characters for some reason, maybe its cause i like to multi-class too much...)
|
|
I usually start with a mechanic i like to try out, like a class ability or a spell, then i make a concept for said mechanic to be used, i pick the concept up and them build from there (although it does tend to lead to suboptimal to non-playable characters for some reason, maybe its cause i like to multi-class too much...)
I personally think that it should be perfectly ok to run a suboptimal character. Isn't it technically the DM's job to work around the players and not the other way around? I almost thing playing a party of misfits would be a hilarious endeavor, provided the DM was smart about it. I don't think anyone should be necessarily penalized for running something that is amazing per concept, but tough to be effective in execution.
That would be good ZangRavnos but happens so rarely.
|
|
That would be good ZangRavnos but happens so rarely.
That is a sad sad state of affairs...What's our roleplaying world coming to?! haha
Such a shame, really, how alot fo DM's out there think that Power Level/Difficulty equates to Enjoyment Level/Overall Experience. To each their own. It is, admittedly, nice to down an incredibly difficult foe that nearly offs the party. But all the time? Not so much, for me at least. I think there's a balance that's rarely acheived. But again, I think it boils down to DM's simply talking with their players about their preferences.
In my mind, it's all about the players. If their happy, the DM is doing his job right. If the DM isn't happy, then he probably needs players that fit his style better? I dunno, it's a grey area I suppose.
Yeah sure is. I like running solo games for just this reason you can really tailor the game to player that way. Unfortunately more players means more work and as they say you cant please all the people all the time.
I had a DM how REALLY went in for the powergaming 'me versus the players' style, we just made characters we had always done which were I would say sort of optimised but not massively. The problem was he was terrible at it the more he tried the more XP we would get, the better he would equip them the better the loot we got. So in the end we really were bad ass all down to him.
DM's can make or break a game, I always try to get my players to play the characters THEY want not what they think they should. I then do my damnedist to make it work, so far no complaints :)
PS sorry for the off topic.
|
|
Makes sense. It's not ENTIRELY off-topic. But it's nice that you actually care about the DM/Player paradigm.
One thing I would be really curious to do for kicks and giggles - post a single fantasy character image and let it sit on the board for like a day just to see how many different concepts you get back from people for a character. Including a backstory and personality. Just to see how diverse it gets.
One thing I remember doing for a campaign awhile back, was rolling EVERYTHING randomly. Everyone had a random race, stat-block, class, and even gender. Pretty much everything else could be created by the player. Rerolls were allowed, of course, for those absolutely opposed to what they got, but we had a good group of guys that all accepted what was thrown to them. That was a lot of firsts for me. First gnome, female, and bard. Never done any combination of the three before. Ended up being alot of fun, with some of the best sessions I've had.
That would be great each week we could post a diffrent picture, it has to be done ZangRavnos :) go for it.
That'd be hilarious and worth a shot.
Little bit of column A, little bit of column b.
Sometimes random inspiration strikes. Sometimes it's entirely silly--one of my favorite characters started off as this concept: "Chick in cheesy chainmail." Really. Made for the Forgotten Realms, I started filling this out: woman makes her own armor, is cleric of Sune so makes armor pretty/revealing where she can but is still functional armor. And then it went from there. She's actually got a pretty cool background and backstory now, but it started from--particularly for me--a rather unexpected source.
Whatever the inspiration, it usually starts as a one line phrase and then gets built up from there -- "runaway escaping arranged marriage" or "grumpy scout with no social skills" or "just wanted to start a brewery and ended up fighting a dragon" or what have you.
Sometimes mechanics do feed inspiration as well. I see a feat combo or something and think, OH, that would be fun. The Caught-off-Guard series of feats resulted in a dwarven barroom brawler character I'm playing who always carries her favorite barstool with her wherever she goes, ready to plonk someone over the head with it. Sometimes I do start with a class-- "I wanna be a sorcerer" -- and then build concept from there. "Oooh, I want the Abyssal bloodline. Oooh, where'd she get that? How does she feel about it? Etc. etc."
And sometimes I do take inspiration from whatever bit of pop culture I've immersed myself in at the time--I have a two World of Darkness characters, one of which was a take on Selina "Catwoman" Kyle, and another, of all things, was a take on the Pink Power Ranger. As a GM, if I make up NPCs off the fly they often get flavored with pop culture character traits as well. The succubus who gave an ambitious, egotistical PC her Profane Gift and was talking to him telepathically became known as "Head Succubus" and then took on various traits of Tricia Helfer as Six in BSG. (And if she has sisters, they do indeed look like Grace Park and Lucy Lawless.) Another favorite NPC for entire randomness has traits taken from Janine Melnitz from Ghostbusters.
|
|
I usually start out with a mechanical hook of some sort. Often I hold off on creating my character until last in a group, as I'm willing to play most classes and am willing to "plug holes" as needed. When that doesn't happen, as with PFS, I try to think of what is most useful, and go with that. My Pathfinder Society characters all have some healing, for example. My main is a half orc cleric of Gorum. When you need a healer, she can heal, but her focus is on being a fighter. Short of build points with this concept, she's never going to be a good offensive caster - not enough wisdom to get the DCs decently high - and her intelligence is through the floor. Having only one skill point per level (and that only becuase you always get one), she's decided to focus on Dazzling Display and intimidate. Choosing a faction that best fit this basic skeleton fleshed out her personality further.
When building a character from the mechanics up, I usually pick a few immovable "lynchpins" and then mix and morph character stats and traits around until I get something that feels like an integrated whole. Occasionally I pick something that has nothing to do with mechanics, and build a character from there - but I like the number manipulation involved in character creation and optimization, so even then they tend to be somewhat optimized.
I also sometimes create characters out of building blocks that are decidedly unoptimized as a form of challenge - when joining an unoptimized group this gives me my fun of optimization without making actual gameplay frustrating. Another option is going bard - as an optimized bard generally helps everyone else shine, she's generally not resented for "power gaming".
Often I've character idea on background but rarely I can use it mainly because I've adapted that my characters fill roles left other players. two campaigns (both APs) and I've played melee character both times (agile fighter and very straightforward cavalier. Both were good characters and I liked to play them). First thing after knowing what kind of character I'll play is make his backstory. This part is that makes me like my characters. Both times I have been like "*sigh* melee character, how to make him enjoyable" but then idea or two and BANG! I have awesome character eventhough mechanically them aren't my favorites.
My Second Darkness character was fighter/chevalier (from Pathfinder #14) whose origins were in Fullmetal Alchemist series. Ling Yao from FMA is my favorite characters so my fighter was from another land, have come to search something (adventure and freedom) and he is agile/mobile guy like Yao in series. Characters name was Longini "Ling" Caspars. Still my Ling was much different from origin.
Second character (which I play right now) is cavalier in Council of Thieves. Like I stated above I (again) filled role for melee guy when other two players made sorcerer and inquisitor. I had recently read Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin and I loved the book. Them I remembered cavalier class from APG which fitted perfectly in "sworn knights"/Kingsguard (like Jaime Lannister in Game of Thrones) so I made cavalier and changed class to "Sworn Knight of Shield Order" so it fits theme. Then backstory (this time just vague backstory so GM could made elements from game easily match backstory) and name. Name is again lend from other source. Those how have read Game of Thrones can easily figure out where I have picked characters name: Theon Tyrell.
(Funny thing occured when I started reading Clash of Kings. Story is also told from Theons POV and he isn't as nice I thought him to be so my Theon is (again) very very different from real Theon)
So my process in short is: need in party/cool idea, backstory and then mechanical things.
I usually start with a mechanic i like to try out, like a class ability or a spell, then i make a concept for said mechanic to be used, i pick the concept up and them build from there (although it does tend to lead to suboptimal to non-playable characters for some reason, maybe its cause i like to multi-class too much...)I personally think that it should be perfectly ok to run a suboptimal character. Isn't it technically the DM's job to work around the players and not the other way around? I almost thing playing a party of misfits would be a hilarious endeavor, provided the DM was smart about it. I don't think anyone should be necessarily penalized for running something that is amazing per concept, but tough to be effective in execution.
I've had characters like that
Joe - A guy who has a 12 in every stat, while everyone else has far more. Took flaws Pathetic to lower one 14 to 12. Then I worked hard at trying to figure out how to make his class be something that wouldn't assist him very much.. The goal was to make him a super lucky guy, who couldn't do much of anything without some luck. Difficult as heck to pull off though, And really he needs a custom built class to make sure he has luck, and spells that are cast as swift actions to make it seem like he has no magic really or fighting capabilities.
When I'm playing, my character creation tends to go in two differetn directions. Frequently, as some others have said, I create my character last, as I'm pretty flexible about what I play and can have fun with just about everything. In that case I just try to create something that complements the other characters to form a stronger team.
Sometimes, though, I enjoy playing exactly the type of character noone else would touch and making it work. My group, like many others tends to mock certain classes as less powerful or effective than others, and I enjoy proving them wrong by taking that "loser" class and making them shine. I've done that with both bard and monk with this current group.
If I'm not last to create and have no particular inspiration, I like to just roll the dice and see what emerges. Kind of like opening presents on Christmas. Did I get a shiny new human fighter or a sneaky little halfling thief? Haughty elven wizard or stolid dwarven cleric? It's all good. Just a few little numbers on a page can lead me quickly into a whole build and backstory.
As a DM, I'm trying to create memorable NPCs that stick in the players' minds. Frequently I'll start with a cool miniature and then invent the stats and story to match it. Next, I come up with the voice, since it is my voice that will be how the group interacts with that character. I take special care with recurring NPCs to give them real personalities that will remain consistent.
|
|
If I'm not last to create and have no particular inspiration, I like to just roll the dice and see what emerges. Kind of like opening presents on Christmas. Did I get a shiny new human fighter or a sneaky little halfling thief? Haughty elven wizard or stolid dwarven cleric? It's all good. Just a few little numbers on a page can lead me quickly into a whole build and backstory.
I've done this exact thing quite a few times :)
There was even a short campaign my group played based on this. We rolled randomly for two classes (re-rolling repeats) and have to play a X 1/ Y 1. I got Oracle/Bard, another was a Paladin/Bard, a third was Monk/Inquisitor etc. Interesting to figure out flavor on that stuff...Anyway... taking whatever rolling method is provided and doing a self-imposed deadlock (or natural, where you can swap once) can force you to make some very.. unique characters. And that's all the more fun!
PS: Having only 4 str sucks, no matter who you are.
|
As a player, first I try to figure out what role the PC will fulfill. Once I've got that out of the way, I start browsing mechanics to see what kind of combatant this character will be. Will he be a timid transmuter or a nefarious necromancer? A brutish two-handed fighter, or a quick-tongued rogue?
Once I have what specific role I want to fill, I start thinking about the character. What's its name, personality quirks, alignment? I have a simple form I go through to develop the core of a PC's personality:
Three Things I Like:
Three Things I Hate:If I came upon a wrecked wagon with a hobgoblin about to slay a human child, what would I do?
I then start working on mechanics of the character, generating ability scores (note: if rolling dice, this step may come very first), filling in some numbers and thinking of how I want to progress the character. By the time I have the 1st level sheet all filled out, I've imagined just enough of a character bio to fill in that small box.
I really don't ever go out and try to make some existing concept from fiction into a PC (however I've more carbon copy NPC's than you can shake a stick at). I may steal bits and pieces of the concept (for instance a gnome fighter I'm currently playing took his *theme* from the gnome berzerks in the Hunter's Blade Drizzt Trilogy), but I don't tend to play Danilo Thann or Arilyn Moonblade remade.
Character concepts are easy for me. Mechanics play a large part in my enjoyment of the game, so I start by deciding what sort of role I'd like to play in the party. My favorite character so far was my Conjurer from an old 3.5 game. I decided I wanted to be the character hanging out in the back, controlling the battlefield & generally bringing in allies to aid him. From this I decided that wizard was the best bet- this was Scarred Lands, and Druids came with some awkward/awesome baggage.
I build the character to be optimized in what he did, and then fleshed out his backstory based on what was actually written on his character sheet. He had a fairly low constitution score, and an even lower strength. Obviously he was a meek little thing, aware of his own fragility. This made sense for someone of "low noble" birth, as they would be wealthy and never have to rely on his own muscle. His prohibited schools were Necromancy & Enchantment, which his master taught him held the magic of the greatest evils. "The strongest wizard is a master of his own mind and an instrument of his own will. He should never dabble in magics that steal from the Grey King, nor should he meddle in the wills of men or beast."
Then I just add in details to really create a full character. My wizard was awkward (low charisma), distrusting of the gods because he found them ultimately selfish, spoke with his hands and stuttered regularly, feared the undead, and refused to drink alcohol because it dulled the mind.
|
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
I have more character concepts than adventures which they would be introduced. :D
It's very easy, sometimes.Sometimes I just pick cool class, and wrap it around it, but not always. It's all about ideas. My next upcoming character will be in CoCT- Ocham, male human doctor. Real class is necromancer, but he uses his necromancy to repel death. His little crazy, and uses very disturbing methods to "heal" people. he is mainly based to Dr. Hiruluk (One Piece), Dr. Nick Riviera (The Simpsons) and Stephen Maturin (Aubrey-Maturin books.) Doctor, little crazy who still wants to help people.
I have currently played only in one campaign (RotRL) And i played fighter with bounty-hunter theme. he looked like little ugly Van Hellsing and used halberd. He was left-over character, because we already had cleric, rogue and sorcerer. Still, it was nive to play.
One more way i get my ideas for characters. I pick class, and start drawing one. Once i'm finished, I usually start to think that "hey, it looks nice. This wuold be awesome to play!". These include Aztec-themed heaven oracle and black-skinned tiefling fighter from Mwangi. I got some crazy ideas sometimes :D
My current and last character were "formed" very differently.
My last one was a rogue. I've always wanted to play a 3.0/3.5 rogue and that carried over into Pathfinder. When I finally got the chance- I leapt at it. Since I already knew what i wanted, it was a simple matter to plug in a few variables (dual wield or 2h, etc..) and the rest pretty much did itself.
Out sprung a dual-short sword wielding sneaky-thief human character almost preformed.
After his demise, I had alot harder time making his replacement.
I had wanted a summoner but the group pretty much didn't want one. I then went with a wizard but never could really make one that seemed to fit.
At the group's suggestion, I tinkered some with a bard of one race or style or other until i was reading through some of the traits and came across that Temple born one. (temple raised? something like that). Almost instantly the puzzle pieces came in and arranged them selves. I went altered the sheet abit and out popped a half-orc brute Arcane Duelist bard who specializes not in lore but in two handing a long sword.
The end result was similar- a character concept I could get into, and enjoy.. but getting there took a very different path for each of them.
-S
I know it drives the RolE players nuts, but I usually start with the mechanical aspects of what i want to play.
In 3.5 I decided i wanted to try a dragon disciple. It was pretty clear that the class was a fighting class, not a casting class. The party already had a fighter, so i chose barbarian 4 sorcerer 1.
I looked at what spells would be useful for a high level fighter type to be casting. Shield, expeditious retreat, true strike and enlarge person quickly topped the list. Based on expeditious retreat, i'd decided that the barbarian had been in a battle that hadn't gone too well, and had ahem.. left under unusual circumstances, discovering his draconic blood in the process. He was disgraced and cast out of his tribe, this needing to join an adventuring party. I then noticed that True strike had no somatic component, so could be cast in armor without chance of failure, so i went with that and enlarge person. I kept the origin though.
I have done all of the following(including a combination of some):
Built a character around a feat/ spell or ability. -Ranger, rogue, fighter multiclass who pistol whips people after disarming them with catch off guard and improved disarm. Catch off guard being the catalyst
Made an Homage to an existing piece of art (Story, TV, Movie) -My inquisitor of Shelyn who "scourges with a whip" those who pervert love or fall prey to jelousies inspired by the Kushiel's Dart books.
Rolled stats and seen where the chips fell.
many a first and second ed game as well as Warhammer fantasy role play gmae where even career was randomly determined
Read a setting write up and found a niche for my character and built from there.
Found out that the group of players I was joining is lacking, ohh a healer, and then had to figure out a take on that archtype/role I wanted to play.
I usually find a picture I like and build the character around it... though once someone in our group said that animal companions were rubbish so I just had to prove him wrong. That ended up with the character being considered a familiar of the animal companion!